International organizations are outraged over proposed legislation being negotiated in the Myanmar Parliament which would require individuals to obtain government approval before converting to, or adopting, a new religion. Myanmar (Burma) is a primarily Theravada Buddhist nation of 54 million people with a generally poor, but improving, human rights record. President Obama has visited Myanmar twice in recent years, placing an international spotlight on the country as it begins its path to reform. Although President Thien Sein has introduced increased governmental transparency, the inaugural elections under the new democratic system upcoming in October are already marred in controversy. Parliamentarian and famed pro-democracy advocate Daw Aung Sun Suu Kyi claimed in November that domestic reforms had stalled.

Human Rights Watch reports that the proposed legislation would also prohibit Buddhist women from joining an inter-faith marriage, criminalize extra-marital affairs, and penalize women who have multiple children within a 3-year period. Amnesty International (AI) insists that Parliament reject or revise the laws, which they claim would “risk fueling further violence against religious minorities,” and contribute to the already widespread discrimination against women. The proposed legislation also prescribes discriminatory obligations on non-Buddhist citizens, particularly effecting Muslim minority populations.

Concerns with the proposed legislation focus on four draft bills, which are opposed by AI and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) on the grounds that they violate international law and have dire human rights implications.

The Religious Conversion Bill requires anyone who wants to convert to a different faith to apply through a state-governed agency. It establishes “registration boards” who “approve” conversions. It is a clear violation of the ICCPR.

The Buddhist Women’s Special Marriage Bill exclusively regulates marriage between Buddhist women and men from other religions. It discriminates against women and non-Buddhist men. It is a violation of CEDAW.

The Population Control Healthcare Bill establishes a 36 month “birth-spacing” interval between allowed child births. It does not have a clear enforcement mechanism and could lead to forced reproductive control.

The Monogamy Bill is aimed at consolidating existing marriage and family laws, but most notable criminalizes extra-marital relations.

Ethnic and religious minorities in Myanmar have been subjected to ongoing and systematic discrimination for years. Recent reports from Rakhine state show that discrimination against the ethnically Muslim Rohingya population is pervasive and is only likely to increase if public sentiment generated by the proposed laws encourages the discrimination. Non-Buddhist women in Myanmar are subject to widespread discrimination and the law would increase the potential for legally sanctioned abuse. AI’s Asia-Pacific Director, Richard Bennett, is particularly concerned that the language of the laws plays into the “harmful stereotypes about women and minorities, in particular Muslims, which are often propagated by extremist national groups.”

Racial and religious tensions in the country are rising, heightened by the election and the November 18th arrest of a Burmese ISIS member after an accidental blast in bordering Burdwan, India.

Buddhist monks in Meiktila, Myanmar, where violence between Muslims and Buddhists left 43 dead in March 2013. Photo Credit: CNN

While Myanmar is not party to the International Covenant on Cultural and Political Rights, it is a party to the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). In a joint statement, AI and the ICJ claim the laws are in violation of the country’s existing international treaty obligations. They fear that these draft laws are discriminatory and will result in human rights violations, including the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the right to privacy, children’s rights and the right to freedom of expression. The legislation is currently tabled in Parliament, no date has been set for a vote.

Jeremy Goldstein is a 2L law student at University of Denver Sturm College of Law and a Staff Editor for the Denver Journal of International Law and Policy.

In a bold and unprecedented move in the House of Commons, 382 Members of Parliament voted in favor of a technique that stops genetic diseases from being passed down from a mother to her child, with 182 members in opposition. This technique uses the DNA from two women and one man to “create” a baby with altered DNA. This alteration causes a permanent change in order to prevent a genetic disease from being passed to future generations. As a last legislative hurdle, the law was approved in the House of Lords on February 24th by a majority of 232. The introduction of such a law will launch the UK into a new frontier, and the surrounding debate has engendered skepticism and controversy.

The technique, developed in Newcastle, aims to help families who want to have healthy children but are confronted with the obstacle of a genetic disease, such as mitochondrial disease. An estimated one in 6,500 babies in the UK are thought to develop a mitochondrial disorder, a serious health problem that can lead to heart and liver disease, respiratory problems, muscular dystrophy and blindness. The issue is that defective mitochondria are only passed to the child from the mother, so this technique uses a modified version of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) to supplement the DNA of the two parents with the healthy mitochondria of a donor woman. Ultimately, the baby would only possess 0.1% of the donor woman’s DNA, and the process would completely eliminate the disease from passing down to future generations. If the law is passed, around 150 babies could be born each year utilizing this technique.

The law is not without opposition, however. Opponents worry that families attempting the technique will be disappointed and let down because of the technique’s uncertainties should it fail. Others equate the situation to genetically modifying crops and believe that the approval of this law might create a slippery slope to allowing even further genetic modification of children. Strong opponents of the law include the Catholic and Anglican Churches in England. They do not support the law because they believe the technique involves the destruction of embryos. Others in opposition do not think the science behind the technique has been adequately proven and others argue about where to draw the ethical line, but now that the law has passed, it will still be up to the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority to decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not the treatment can proceed. If a certain case is approved, the child born will not be able to discover the identity of the “third parent” donor.

Now that the law has passed in the House of Lords, the next step is for the UK fertility regulator to develop and publish licensing rules for evaluating applications to perform this technique. By early October of 2015 the regulations are set to come into force, and the first babies could be born as soon as next autumn using the new technique. Critics caution that the law could open up the UK to dangerous precedents, but others applaud the brave new future of scientific discovery. Time will tell where this path will take the UK and whether or not other countries will follow suit in years to come.

Laura Brodie is a 3L law student at University of Denver Sturm College of Law and a Staff Editor for the Denver Journal of International Law and Policy.

The Interview, starring Seth Rogen and James Franco is a comedy about the assassination of North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un. Bitterly offended by the film, North Korea called the content an “act of war.” North Korea began making threats during the summer of 2014, going so far as involving the United Nations in an attempt to stop the production of the film. Despite this, Sony Pictures refused to cease production and release of the film. In November 2014, Sony’s computer system was besieged by a series of hacks by a group calling themselves the Guardians of Peace. This eventually culminated in Sony cancelling the release of the film due to threats of further attack in movie theaters. Sony and the United States suspected North Korea of masterminding the cyber-attacks while North Korea vehemently denied any part in it.

The controversy surrounding the film centers on freedom of speech. The reaction to the initial cancellation of the film in Hollywood was intense with concern that censorship in response to threats will set a dangerous precedent where films and other forms of art will be censored in response to threats. President Obama voiced similar concern over the repercussions Sony’s initial decision to cancel the release of the film will have on freedom of speech, as did other politicians from around the world.

Out of these recent controversies, questions for the future arise: Can freedom of speech go too far? Could too much freedom of expression result in war? Or will restriction of freedom of expression itself lead to war and violation of human rights? Ultimately, we must find a way to balance the competing interests, preserve our rights and settle our cultural differences peacefully.

Bernadette Shetrone is a 3L law student at University of Denver Sturm College of Law and a Staff Editor for the Denver Journal of International Law and Policy.

As fighting intensifies and peace talks remain on rocky ground, the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine increases with each day that passes. One aspect of the crisis in Ukraine is the massive surge in numbers of internally displaced people. Reports of nearly 600,000 asylum seekers fleeing Ukraine, do not include the nearly one million internally displaced people still within Ukraine’s borders. Thus far, Ukraine and the international community have struggled to adequately respond to the needs of the hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people (IDPs) forced from their homes during this violent conflict.

UNHCR, UNICEF, and OCHA are just a few of the non-governmental actors attempting to address the humanitarian crisis. According to its latest operational update, UNHCR has focused on the registration of IDPs, ensuring access to employment, and providing emergency shelter and non-food items, amongst many other efforts. UNICEF has focused on the health, nutrition, and education of the internally displaced children in Ukraine, while also emphasizing the need for monetary donations to continue its emergency relief. OCHA, the UN agency that coordinates the humanitarian responses to crises around the world, also emphasized the lack of funding and the need for emergency shelter and food security, amongst the many needs that must be met in Ukraine.

While UN Agencies struggle to keep up with the needs of IDPs, State actors are struggling to respond to the situation. While a French-German proposal for a cease-fire has been reached but remains ineffective in some areas, the response from the rest of the European Union also appears to be focused on diplomacy. In a recent speech to the European Parliament, the EU High Representative/Vice President, Federica Mogherini, emphasized, “that there is no alternative solution to a diplomatic solution for this crisis.” Meanwhile, United States officials have continued to debate whether or not to send arms to Ukraine.

While State actors attempt to determine the best course of action, Ukraine has adopted legislation concerning IDPs and the people of Ukraine are reportedly acting very generously toward IDPs. However, the question remains: how effectively can the Ukrainian government enforce its legislation and uphold their end of the ceasefire, and how long will Ukrainian generosity last, as more and more people are displaced every day?

One answer to these issues is funding. Simply put, the agencies attempting to address the problems facing IDPs need the money to continue to do so. UNICEF has already spent the US$10 million dollars that have been pledged, and still lacks about $20 million in committed funds. UNHCR has reported that it needs US$41 million dollars for the situation in Ukraine, and has only received two percent of those funds. Thus far, the funds received have been from only the European Union.

While it is the primary duty of the national authorities to provide assistance to IDPs, the international community can still play its part in assisting the national authorities of Ukraine. Agencies like UNHCR and UNICEF, along with many other partners, are poised to help the IDPs of Ukraine; they simply need the funding to adequately do so. It is time for the international community to step up and provide the monetary assistance necessary to provide for and protect the IDPs of Ukraine.

Julie Marling is a 2L law student at University of Denver Sturm College of Law and a Staff Editor for the Denver Journal of International Law and Policy.

In November of 2014, The Group of Twenty (G20) met in Brisbane Australia to discuss the state of the global economy. Global growth, climate change, and tax avoidance were among the major issues discussed. The Australian delegation contested the inclusion of a statement on the climate which is reflective of the recent repeal of their own national carbon tax. The current Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has stated that “we can’t pursue environmental improvements at the expense of economic progress.” Prime Minister Abbott’s statement reflects a major obstacle to climate change mitigation worldwide.

While public statements may purport otherwise, many policymakers treat carbon taxes, carbon markets, and regulatory regimes as obstacles to economic development. Framing the issue in this binary fashion reflects the shortsighted attitude that has been pervasive for decades. The world’s economic leaders need to adopt a radically different perspective and re-conceptualize climate change as an impending environmental disaster.

Photo Credit: NASA.gov

The international dialogue on climate change began in the late 1980’s and arguably took a foothold at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. While international efforts like the Kyoto Protocol have received widespread support, implementation of climate reforms have not done enough to mitigate climate change.

At a press conference on November 2nd, 2014, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon urged leaders to act, otherwise the opportunity to meet the international target of 2º C “will slip away within the next decade.” The temperature target of 2°C represents what many consider to be the tipping point for global climate change. First set as a target by the European Union in 1996, the 2°C target was adopted in the 2009 Copenhagen Accord.

The issue of climate change cannot be confined to environmental impacts. In 2006 the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change asserted, “climate change presents a unique challenge for economics: it is the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen.” In 2013, speaking at the world economic forum in Davos, Lord Stern indicated that his 2006 predictions may have been underestimated with “some of the effects . . . coming through more quickly than we thought.”

The unaccounted cost of carbon emissions are predicted to have a dramatic impact on the environment, economy, and development. A recent study by NASA suggests that if emissions continue at their current trajectory, the North American continent will very likely experience a ‘megadrought’ that could last up to 40 years. The human and economic impacts of such a severe, sustained drought would be catastrophic.

While some leaders, like Prime Minister Abbott, view environmental impact as a secondary concern to economic development (if at all), the economic consequences of not altering the current carbon trajectory will be far worse than investing in change now. Governments need to remove climate change from the back burner, do away with rhetoric, and illusory research and development projects. Climate change needs to be treated like any other natural disaster should be – swiftly and decisively.

Jordan Edmondson is a 3L law student at University of Denver Sturm College of Law and a Staff Editor for the Denver Journal of International Law and Policy.

Hours before the “Torture Report” was release by the Senate, former speechwriter for President George W. Bush Michael Gerson wrote an op-ed where he called Senators Feinstein’s and Udall’s decisions to release the report reckless in what he referred to as “a massive dump of intelligence.” In making his argument, Mr. Gerson misconstrues principles of international law that should be clarified while also setting a dangerous precedent.

Mr. Gerson attempts to equate President Obama’s drone program with President Bush’s torture program (Mr. Gerson does not use the term torture, instead opting for “harsh interrogation,” most reviews of the report conclude that the CIA engaged in torture). Mr. Gerson states that there is only “a subtle moral distinction” between these two attempts to keep the United States safe. However, there is more than a subtle moral distinction between these programs, one that calls his argument into question.

In this June 3, 2014 file photo, Senate Intelligence Chair Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. is pursued by reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington. Secretary of State John Kerry asked Feinstein on Friday to “consider” the timing of the expected release in coming days of a report on harsh CIA interrogation techniques.Photo/Caption Credit: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP, Washington Post

One of these programs can be justifiable under international law while the other can never be justified under international law. Before establishing these distinctions, it is important to highlight that Mr. Gerson points out in his piece that this torture report is being released in “the middle of a war.” This is important because this sets parameters of acceptable actions. During a time of war, which the United States has engaged in since September 11th, 2011, the use of force that results in the loss of human life is permissible so long as it meets the jus in bello requirements. This requires the use of force to be proportional, necessary, and utilize distinction. This is in opposition to torture, which is never justifiable under international law. The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment specifically states in Article 2(2) that not even a state of war permits a state to engage in torture.

Therefore, there is more than a moral distinction that separates Obama’s drone program and Bush’s torture program. Obama’s program has a legal foundation in international law if certain conditions are met while Bush’s program is a violation of international law no matter the circumstances.

This brings me to Mr. Gerson’s more subtle implication in his piece. He warns President Obama and Senate democrats that in the future a different Congress may want to look into the current drone program. Mr. Gerson’s veiled threat implies that because they are investigating President Bush’s torture program, they are opening themselves to similar investigations by future administrations and members of Congress.

Mr. Gerson’s threat is disturbing. The United States is supposed to be a nation of laws. The Senate is investigating the torture program because it appears to have broken international law. Mr. Gerson suggests that holding United States leaders accountable for violations of international law is nothing more than political posturing. This suggestion undermines the foundation that the United States is a nation of laws.

While President Obama’s use of force may be justified under international law, I do not necessary claim that it is. President Obama and his administration have failed to publically articulate how its drone program meets the requirements of lawful use of force under international law. Congress has a duty to investigate President Obama’s drone program to ensure that it is lawful. This duty comes from Congress’ oversight role, not from political revenge as suggested by Mr. Gerson. And if Congress concludes that President Obama’s drone program does not meet the principles of international law (proportional, necessary, and utilizing distinction), then they should take the appropriate legal actions to ensure that the United States protects its foundation as a nation of laws.

Wesley Fry is a 2014 graduate from University of Denver Sturm College of Law and former Editor-in-Chief of the Denver Journal of International Law and Policy.

A spokesman for Russian president Vladimir Putin told the BBC on Tuesday that Russia was nervous about NATO’s expansion towards its borders, and called for the West to make a “100% guarantee that no one would think about Ukraine joining NATO.” This may be the first time that the Russian government has stated explicitly what was widely believed to be the primary motivation behind Russia’s military annexation of Crimea earlier this year and its subsequent support for the armed separatist movement in the Russian-speaking eastern regions of Ukraine. This might present an opportunity for reaching an agreement to end the conflict in Ukraine, but the spokesman, Dmitri Peskov, did not appear to state it as such.

Since Ukraine’s pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown by the EuroMaidan protests in February, some Western diplomats and scholars have pointed to what is known as the “Finland option” as a path for Ukraine that would be acceptable to Russia, the U.S., and Europe. Finland, which became independent from Russia in 1917, is a member of the European Union, but has never joined NATO, and has extensive economic ties to both Russia and Europe. If Ukraine were to pursue a similar course, its association with Europe and eventual EU membership might not be seen by Russia as a threat, and Putin could be persuaded to accept an independent, territorially unified Ukraine.

U.S. and European officials have not publicly indicated any willingness to give Russia any guarantees about Ukraine’s future ties to NATO. They continue to accuse Russia of destabilizing Ukraine and violating the ceasefire in place in the eastern regions since September. On the same day as Peskov’s remarks, NATO’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that Russia was again building up its military forces on the Ukrainian border, and possibly crossing into the separatist-controlled area. Germany’s foreign minister said there was still no end to the conflict in sight.

The longer the conflict continues, it will become more difficult for Ukraine to find a sustainable middle ground between Russia and the West. Russia’s other European neighbors, NATO members and non-members alike, have become increasingly concerned by Putin’s aggression in Ukraine and may respond by increasing their military cooperation with the West. The “Finland option” may not even be retained by Finland itself.

It is not clear whether Peskov’s comments indicate that Russia is willing to change its policy in Ukraine in exchange for a guarantee from NATO not to extend membership to Kiev. If so, a compromise solution would be within reach. For it to succeed however, Russia would have to fully accept Ukraine’s integration into the EU, even if it is out of NATO.

Scott Petiya is a 4LE student and Staff Editor for the Denver Journal of International Law and Policy

By far, some of the major cost factors that are associated with hosting the World Cup tournament consist of spending on the development of infrastructure, improvement of transportation system and various tourism related accommodations. In the case of Qatar, however, the variable that would have to be factored into the final equation are lives of hundreds of migrant workers lost on the construction sites since the commencement of the 2022 World Cup project due to ill working and living conditions.

One of the main factors that played against the Qatar’s bid, though, was the weather. Of the countries running for the 2018 and 2022 tournaments, Qatar was ranked as the only “high risk” candidate because summer temperatures, which can reach 120 degrees Fahrenheit, could pose a serious threat to the health of the athletes. However, the Chief Executive Officer of Qatar World Cup bid Committee assured that the “stadiums, training sites, fans zones and other outdoor areas” will employ hi-tech cooling technology to provide comfortable temperatures for athletes and thousands of visiting fans from around the world.

Emir of the State of Qatar Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani (left) and Fifa President Sepp Blatter pose with the World Cup after the Qatar announcement in 2010.Photo and Caption Credit: The Independent

These reassurances certainly evidenced that the government is taking the concern over the health and the well-being of the players and fans very seriously. However, a September 2013 exposé by the Guardian revealed Qatar’s appalling failure to protect and prevent serious exploitation of migrant workers who are directly involved in the World Cup construction project. The report put the nation in the spotlight once again, stating that nearly 900 workers have died in Qatar since the construction of the World Cup commenced in 2012. Many of these workers were killed by sudden heart attack and workplace accidents caused by overwork and lack of adequate health and safety practices. The report sparked international outrage and criticism over government’s treatment of migrant workers.

According to a Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, Qatar currently has the highest percentage of migrant workers in the world – approximately 88% of total population of 1.9 million is immigrants. These workers come to Qatar with the hope that their income will enable them to provide financial support to their families back home. Driven by poverty, they often take out large loans to pay high recruitment fees for a promise of well-paid jobs in Qatar. Instead, upon arrival, they end up in jobs where conditions and wages differ significantly from what was originally promised. Many of these employees live in overcrowded and unsanitary labor camps which lack electricity and air conditioning. Detailed investigations conducted by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International in 2011 highlighted widespread violations of migrant workers’ rights, including dangerous working conditions or not being paid wages, sometimes for months.

Many of the problems are rooted in “kafala”, an employee sponsorship system that ties a foreign worker to a single employer who sponsors the visa in Qatar. Under this system, migrant workers are not allowed to change their jobs without the employer’s permission (so called No-Objection Certificate). Also, the existence of the “exit permit” system, that requires employees to obtain employer’s consent before leaving the country, gives employers ultimate power over their foreign employees. Further, Qatari law prohibits migrant workers from joining or forming trade unions, so workers cannot engage in strikes to voice their problems and find solutions to their dire circumstances. Prevented from changing jobs or leaving the country, these workers have no choice but to accept low wages and poor living and working conditions.

Many human rights groups have criticized Qatar’s kafala system of employment and urged the government to abolish or revise these controversial laws which facilitate the exploitation of migrant workers. In May 2014, in response to worldwide condemnation of the contentious laws, the Qatari government announced its plans to reform the kafala system. The proposed reforms were based on the recommendations by DLA Piper, an international law firm, which was instructed by the government to prepare an independent report examining the situation of migrant workers. According to a statement made by human rights director of the Qatari interior ministry, Colonel Abdullah Saqr al-Mohannadi, the new law would modify the exit visa system by allowing migrant workers to exit the country without their employer’s consent. Instead, a new e-government system would automatically issue exit visas to a foreign employee after 72- hour grace period prior to any departure.

The government’s announcement of its decision to make fundamental changes to the existing laws elicited hope in millions of people throughout the international community that Qatar would provide long-awaited protection for foreign workers, and finally eliminate its controversial system of employment. However, according to a brief published by the Amnesty international in November, 2014, six months after the announcement, “Qatar is still failing on workers’ rights”. Despite its promises to abolish the kafala sponsorship system and to replace its “exit visa” system, the government has taken no steps to implement these changes.

In 2013, Japan joined the Hague convention on the civil aspects of child abduction. The convention took effect on April 1, 2014. In October 2014, a child has been returned to his father. The boy was born in Germany to a German father and a Japanese mother. He lived in Germany until June 2014 when his parents split and his mother took him back to Japan—a situation all too common for international marriages. While this marks the first time that a child has been returned from Japan to a foreign parent under the Convention, the first case under the Convention occurred in July 2014 and involved a child being returned to Japan from the UK. Two other cases followed in September 2014 and those also involved a child being returned to Japan from abroad. As of November 2014, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has 14 requests for the return of children from Japan and 9 for the return to Japan. Considering the small differences, these numbers bring about a more pressing question: were Japan’s reasons for not previously adopting the Convention truly justified?

Two Canadian men, who asked not to be identified, hold a sign during a demonstration in Tokyo advocating dual custody rights for divorced parents in Japan. Photo/Caption Credit: Stars and Stripes

The Hague convention sets rules and procedures for the prompt return of children under the age of 16 to their country of habitual residence. Since the agreement was completed in 1980, 93 states have become members to the convention. The most recent is Japan but it did not come easy. For years, Japan resisted joining the Convention citing a desire to protect Japanese nationals from domestic violence and cultural differences. This resulted in extreme difficulties for parents whose spouse, usually the mother, unilaterally took the children into Japan. The term for this came to be known as a “left behind parent.”

One such parent was Christopher Savoie, a Tennessee man who had two children with his Japanese wife. When the couple divorced, Savoie was awarded custody of the children by the U.S. courts. In 2009, the mother took the children on a trip to Japan but never returned. When Savoie went to Japan to get the kids, he was arrested and detained on charges of kidnapping. Because Japan was not a party to the Convention at that time, Savoie’s only legal recourse would have been to go through the Japanese family courts. However, the U.S. custody award would have done very little to convince the Japanese court to return the children, not to mention the logistics of having to retain a local attorney for the matter. With his only legal recourse rendered futile, Savoie decided on an alternative and it lead to his arrest.

Stories like Savoie’s are common for international marriages between foreigners and Japanese. But while Savoie got noticed, others get lost in the shadows. Of the registered international marriages in Japan in 2009, the year of Savoie’s struggle, 78% were between a Japanese man and a non-Japanese bride. Japan’s reluctance to implement the Hague Convention neglected the needs of its own citizens in international marriages despite the country’s purported reason being a desire to protect Japanese nationals. The current number of Japanese nationals seeking return of their children to Japan under the Convention belies that reason and suggests that there may have been a number of Japanese parents in Savoie’s position that got lost in the shuffle.

Japan is a nation full of history and beauty. It is a nation with some of the kindest and most hospital people that one will meet. Yet, it is also a nation that continues to struggle with a divide between Japanese and non-Japanese. Social customs, laws, and the courts have an uneasy track record of disparately treating non-Japanese nationals and Japan’s long reluctance to accept the Hague convention underscores that divide. But in doing so, Japan may have harmed more of its citizens than it protected. The number of Japanese parents seeking return of their children to Japan under the Hague Convention suggests that there might have been many other parents in Christopher Savoie’s situation: left behind.

Leonard Large is a 3L law student at University of Denver Sturm College of Law and Candidacy Editor for the Denver Journal of International Law and Policy.

]]>http://djilp.org/5399/critical-analysis-parents-get-left-behind-due-to-japans-hesitance/feed/0Critical Analysis: Colombia’s FARC Admits That Its Role in the Civil War “Affected Citizens”http://djilp.org/5396/critical-analysis-colombias-farc-admits-that-its-role-in-the-civil-war-affected-citizens/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=critical-analysis-colombias-farc-admits-that-its-role-in-the-civil-war-affected-citizens
http://djilp.org/5396/critical-analysis-colombias-farc-admits-that-its-role-in-the-civil-war-affected-citizens/#commentsWed, 26 Nov 2014 15:59:45 +0000http://djilp.org/?p=5396

FARC joined negotiations in Cuba with the Colombian government in November 2013. The purpose of the talks has been to get FARC to sign an agreement in which it renounces its armed struggle in order to join the legal political process and stop the internal conflict, and to provide for victim reparations. However, as a part of working towards an agreement on disarmament and the eventual implementation of a peace deal, FARC is expected to seek an amnesty agreement.

A march for those enslaved by Mexico’s drug cartels.Photo Credit: CM Keiner/Flickr, at http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/farc-victims-seek-truth-peace-talks/story?id=17593438

Several important questions emerge from FARC’s admission. First, what type of reparations are appropriate, when family members are still searching for over 400 victims who were kidnapped by FARC and went missing between 2002 and 2011? Second, should FARC members receive amnesty, or is that in conflict with the notion of FARC taking responsibility for their role in the violence?

In order to determine what type of victim reparations are appropriate, it is important to understand the nature of the conflict. The conflict in Colombia has claimed around 250,000 lives and displaced over 5 million people. The majority of killings were carried out by the Colombian army, police, and state-linked right-wing paramilitary groups, including FARC.

Between 2002 and 2011, it is alleged that rebels kidnapped 2,678 civilians, and that more than 400 of these victims are still in captivity or have gone missing. Members of victims’ associations such as Los Que Faltan, or “Those Who are Missing,” state that they are not opposed to the peace process, and support it, as long as there is transparency with what has happened to the victims. Other victims rights groups have stated that they do not want peace talks to advance unless FARC is willing to provide answers to the families of those victims that have been kidnapped or disappeared. During the peace talks, FARC commanders have stated that the rebels no longer hold any captives. This leaves family members of missing victims with little in the way of hope of finding their loved ones. Farc has also threatened throughout this process that without government concessions, peace talks will fail. The group states that unless the government is willing to guarantee the rights and security of the opposition and cease killing guerrilla commanders in the field, the peace talks will not succeed. Thus, FARC has provided few answers to the families of victims, and has only demonstrated willingness to take responsibility to the extent that members receive amnesty for their actions.

Parties involved in the talks have argued that in order to truly find a solution, it must address the roots of conflict. Integral in this process would be acknowledgement of the violence caused by FARC, for FARC to provide answers to the many families with missing family members and little in the way of answers. It is unlikely that the peace process will be successful, or that victims and their families will accept any sort of reparations without getting the answers that they are looking for. It remains to be seen whether FARC’s admissions and willingness to take responsibility will include providing victims and their families with meaningful reparations and the answers they have been searching for.

With regard to the issue of amnesty, the same perpetrators that have been responsible for large-scale human rights abuses, which have continued and in some cases increased despite the peace process, are now seeking integration into the Colombian political process. Providing amnesty to these perpetrators of violence and integrating them into the legal and political process would send the wrong message to victims, delay the peace process, and could potentially result in violence. When FARC last attempted to take part in electoral politics, several thousand members and elected officials were murdered. Even if FARC agrees to victim reparations, it is unlikely that the integration of these perpetrators into the political process will be welcomed by victims and their families, and even less likely that they will support the continuation of peace talks.

The question remains what recourse victims will have if FARC opts not to provide victims and their families with the information they are seeking regarding the whereabouts of missing persons. FARC negotiator Jesus Santrich stated that any punitive measures would have to be taken by an independent tribunal, not the state or its “corrupt and venal judiciary.” If the Colombian government agrees to amnesty or refuses to prosecute for crimes committed by FARC member over the 50 years of violence, members of the international community may call for an independent tribunal to investigate crimes committed by FARC members.

Emily Boehme is a 2L law student at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law and a Staff Editor for the Denver Journal of International Law and Policy.